[Music] and welcome back to Baxter frauds make sure you hit the Thumbs Up Button if you subscribe and ring that Bell for notifications so the next Premiere video you can meet a live chat with everyone else and leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think and it's a rise of the Moors Court update this was uh part of the oral argument for something I filed to dismiss the accusatory instrument uh based on a failure to say the claim upon which release may be granted I had wrote that or a portion of the argument uh before the United States Supreme Court had made the Bruin decision so once the United States Supreme Court made the Brewing decision I added it um to my argument so I started off the argument with reference to the mass my my argument was 60 pages in total I think it was a little more than 60 pages but pretty sure 60 pages I had hand wrote it in jail while I was in the cell I was in uh cpod cell 228 dear more and having a swell time here at the insane asylum um and I wrote it handwritten um and in Massachusetts is Massachusetts case law which is cited in my argument so this is from Massachusetts superior court itself or maybe from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts I can't remember but it's in the it's in my argument which you can just call the clerk and ask for it it's public information uh there's a Massachusetts case which specifies that the courts of Massachusetts treat statutory exemptions as an affirmative defense there's additional case law from the courts of Massachusetts that specifies an affirmative defense or when when it when an accusatory instrument uh raises upon its face the existence of an affirmative defense then the the arguments that fails to make a a claim upon which release may be granted right um and obviously when this failed to be claimed upon which release may may be granted the case gets dismissed in this argument the judge had brought up the issue that and he didn't he didn't necess he didn't specifically say that it only applies to civil issues but he insinuated it without saying it uh he made the argument of it only applies to civil arguments but that's not what the courts of Massachusetts said there's no case law that specifies that it only applies to civil actions an example of that and specifically a statutory exemption which is an affirmative defense and how the issue must be dismissed is as an example if an individual is charged with the unlicensed possession of a firearm and in the Statue it says that you know you can't be charged with unlicensed possession of a firearm if you have a license to possess the firearm then the individual who has a license would raise the argument that well I have statutory exemption because of there's a statute that says I'm exempt here's the license and then the case would be dismissed administratively because um the prosecutor would say you know fail to make us basically they would fail to make a claim upon which relief may be granted because they can't prove that the individual doesn't have the license because the statute's totally exempt are you a bonehead likewise there's a uh and that would be dismissed so that would issue wouldn't go to trial because there's a statutory exemption and statutory exemptions are treated as an affirmative defense and affirmative defenses are in essence failure to make a claim upon which relief may be granted so you'll see in my 60 page argument where I had argued within the Massachusetts statutes the Clause where it's it's completely legal for an individual to hold handle and even fire or firearm without a license for lawful purposes uh and since the Second Amendment exists exercising your right to bear arms in the name of self-defense and in the name of self-preservation especially as a militia so not only individually to keep and bear arms to for self-preservation and self-defense but also as a militia so it protects us as an individual and in the status of emotion that is a lawful purpose and since it is a lawful purpose there's a failure to make a claim upon which relief may be granted based on that statutory exemption there's another separate statutory exemption that exempts militias in general which according to title 33 and this is all within my argument I cited this title 33 of the Massachusetts statute it it clearly recognizes the organized militia which would be the Marines the Army the Navy the Coast Guard the Air Force and the unorganized militia which would be the people which would be as an example the marsh militia and there's a third Clause within the statute that exempts individuals who are traveling through the Commonwealth without making any unnecessary stops which is pursuant to the federal laws of the peaceful Journey so I cited all three of those statutory exemptions as our affirmative defense which would mean there's a fair failure to make a claim upon which release may be granted which would mean this case has to be dismissed trying his best to shoehorn an affirmative defense but still couch it as a was it effectively a civil motion to dismiss which is failure to stay a claim upon which upon which relief can be granted and the way he tries to do this is you have to accept a whole bunch of false premises here essentially what Jamal is trying to argue is that because his militia exists and I guess the Second Amendment uh affords the ability of state to um uh raise malicious and regulate malicious here's militia requires the use of a firearm for uh the provisions of self-defense Ergo he doesn't need a license to carry a firearm there go he statutorily exempt from uh from the stage from the Massachusetts license to carry statute which doesn't make any sense and he's also trying to count it as an affirmative defense even though it's not even an affirmative defense of their imaginative Massachusetts state law the state would have to prove that he that uh that he uh he would have to show that he is not obligated to have a license to carry but he hasn't stopped he hasn't figured that out yet hasn't solved that yet so that was uh also or added to that was uh when the Brewing decision came down from the United States Supreme Court saying that you know as an example the Second Amendment is not a second class uh uh right subject to completely different laws you know I brought up the issue of no other right is subject to licensing you don't need a license to exercise your right to free speech you don't need a license to exercise your right to a trial by jury you don't need a license to exercise your right to uh due process of law you don't need a license to exercise your right to be secure in your personal papers or effects so if the United States Supreme Court said the Second Amendment is not subject to entirely separate laws well then that means it can't be subject to licensing likewise I brought up the Murdoch versus Pennsylvania which specified that a constitutional right cannot be taxed or licensed when we look up the definition of license tax you'll see that um you know license taxes for Public Safety and when they apply the licensing scheme that's they do in the name of quote-unquote Public Safety so that in and of itself is a license tax and unconstitutional Additionally the United States Supreme Court which in the Asiatic judge uh the the majority decision specified that when a plane when the plain text of the Second Amendment can protects an individual's conduct then that conduct is protected which means you can't be charged with a crime for conducting yourself according to the to the amendment the word militia is literally in the amendment uh not only that but it was stated that uh judges have to go into the history of the Second Amendment and you'll see where um I addressed that I'm not sure if I posted it but I addressed it addressed it in the argument specifying that um I don't think I posted it actually no I didn't post it but it's it's in the transcript that uh and this isn't my historical finding this is the findings that the United States Supreme Court referenced uh because they they brought up young versus Hawaii which I also brought it up and in the young versus Hawaii case it talks about how the origin of Licensing so this is the origin of Licensing so when when when seeing if a statute is unconstitutional you have to look at its origin you have to look at the history of the amendment you have to look up the history of the enforcement of the amendment and you have to look up the history of the uh of the uh the regulation of the amendment the origin of Licensing applied to slaves so all they're doing is applying slave laws and that's unconstitutional not only that but during the um during the grand jury minutes uh a juror asked the prosecutor so how does this militia thing work um and he didn't give an answer he said Well normally he said generally I'm paraphrasing I believe he said generally a militia is attached to a state there was already and I provided information from the federal courts that states that that's not true that's also provide a listen on my website as well if you go to regular you go to Second Amendment and you'll see if you read all of it you'll see why I referenced the federal courts where this uh where uh it was the addition of Colombia saying that a militia only exists if it's subject to State regulation and then the federal court said that is too narrow uh um of a of a claim so if the federal courts are saying that and that was revealed in the federal courts then clearly that's not the case so the jurist asked how his militia thing works the prosecutor deliberately withheld information and that was part of the part of my argument and you'll see right here uh Mr Abdullah is obviously me as far as a militia when it wasn't asked if I as an individual was as an individual was in a militia because the prosecutor had made the claim that uh you know I individually but that's not what the juror asked he didn't ask if Jamal Talib Abdullah Bay was in the militia he asked generally how does the militia work right and the prosecutor deliberately withheld this information regarding the United States code where it specifies that proper age for malicious service is 17 years old all making this on his involvement in a militia the militias are governed by the states his rise of the Moore's militia is not a a recognized militia according to the state of Rhode Island or the state of Massachusetts nobody it's its own it's his own paramilitary uh LARPing uh group so he he's not a militia he can he can't cite to the U.S code uh saying oh here we go the here are the rule regulations and Regulatory bodies about the militia you're not a militia you're not you're you're LARP group is not a a recognized or valid or authorized militia your entire argument falls apart right there um so anyway when the juror asked general you know how does this militia thing work he should have brought up as an example uh as part of his uh duty to provide full disclosure to the jurors he should have said as an example in the United States code 17 years of age is proper for malicious service so if that information was given then you know just as an example bare minimum I wouldn't have been charged with improper storage of a firearm where a minor had access because that 17 year old quote-unquote minor is fit for malicious service according to United States federal law which means he's not a minor wait a minute not only is he of the age requirement at the time but he was actually in a militia so if that's the case and the juror knew that then he could he or she or them or they could have concluded okay well maybe we don't want to uh and die on this specific charge and who knows you know what else that would have applied to it could have led to me not being indicted at all which is exactly why the information was withheld um and you see that in my argument right here just as an example so if if this juror or panel of Juris was informed of this which they did not know then there's a high probability that none of us would have been indicted with these charges if they knew the law and then again with the Brewing decision the United States Supreme Court struck down the two-pronged test which you if you get the uh this oral argument you'll see where the prosecutor was using that two-prong test or relying on case law uh where the prosecutors and the judges relied on the two-prong test to justify the Massachusetts Massachusetts licensing scheme uh the Supreme Court of the United States struck that down so they can no longer rely on those cases to justify the licensing scheme of of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts incompetent irrelevant and immaterial uh uh or something and that's within that's within the decision itself in fact before it even went I believe before it even went into the unconstitutionality of the New York statue in the Massachusetts statute it addressed that very thing and then again in 2016 the United States Supreme Court addressed uh the the dangerous misuse of of the Heller Decision by the Massachusetts courts I believe it was Commonwealth versus uh it was a female who who purchased a taser to defend herself from her abusive boyfriend they try to they basically found her guilty of a crime and threw her in jail like oh just get beat up by a boyfriend don't use a Taser that's a dangerous weapon so you know it's proof that it's it's a danger it's it's dangerous and of course I use that and I reference that and I believe that's on the website as well but um this is for you to read a decision still hasn't been made on this it's been I think when did I make this argument December November was before that it was October wasn't it before that was before October so since October this decision still hasn't been made he said he's going to take it under revisement the decision still hasn't been made and in the in the case in the beginning of the case you'll see where even this judge talks about how every every single state is looking at their licensing scheme to ensure that it doesn't conflict with Bruin so this isn't this isn't a small thing this is affecting every single state of the union and then of course I brought up the fact that there are several States within the United States that have what is referred to as constitutional carry states or permitless carry states and they base that on the fact that the constitution already grants the right so there's no permission needed to exercise that right so if there's no permission needed to exercise it in those and I believe it's it's at least 25 States so half of the Union what does that say about the other half now starts to argue that well other states have uh constitutional carry um laws well effectively saying that you don't need a license anymore to carry in these particular States or they're very very very lightly regulated uh but Massachusetts doesn't have that uh Massachusetts still has is it its existing uh carry licensing uh apparatus in place even after the Bruin decision and as far as I understand it uh the Brewing decision did not invalidate Massachusetts carry a license law Bruin did not completely wipe away all forms of Licensing when it comes to open or concealed carry it only uh struck down laws uh Carey uh carry laws or effectively uh certain laws that would effectively created a de facto ban on concealed carrying um so States uh for example States like New Jersey but if Massachusetts isn't one of those laws then it still would effectively be valid on the books so his argument again completely Falls flat it doesn't matter whether or not there are other states that have constitutional carry licensing uh constitutional carry what matters is what Massachusetts has so he until he can make that claim that existing Massachusetts law uh is contrary to the Bruin decision it doesn't matter even still he's still I don't know if he could he could effectively he doesn't really have much of a case here um so I'm actually very curious to see what the judge is going to rule on in his motion why aren't you doing that and then again they'll say well Public Safety and that was my argument and my decision if you're worried about Public Safety criminals don't go to gun stores and go through background checks so this only applies to law-abiding citizens it does apply to criminals so you're you're only affecting law-abiding citizens and not one time has the prosecutor alleged that my firearms were purchased illegally because any firearm that I've ever purchased in my life I first passed a state and federal background check to own it so clearly I'm not a criminal in possession of a firearm so as far as public and safety Public Safety is concerned there's there's no worry about that with me because I already passed the state and federal background check two rise of the Moors members currently being held in Massachusetts are wanted on new charges in Rhode Island there are record appendix the cumberlander information about charges pending against him in Rhode Island Quinn cumberlander and Jamal Latimer were arrested July 3rd after an hour's long armed standoff with State Police on I-95 in Wakefield Tuesday attorney general Peter narona announced they are wanted on firearms and bail violation charges cumberlander is alleged to have provided a false address during multiple attempts to buy a gun from a dealer in Warwick the AG's office says Latimer violated terms of his bail out of Providence Superior Court according to the release Bay was arrested in March 2020 by Rhode Island state police well there goes your excuse there Jamal and now for your trial dates let's get to it Jamal Tavon Sanders Latimer we'll see you on trial May 22nd 2023 Quinn cumberlander August 7 2023 huh Aaron Johnson May 22nd 2023 abon El Cara May 22nd 2023. Lamar Dao May 22nd 2023 Colonel Pierre May 22nd 2023 Omar Malik Antonio May 22nd 2023 Will Fredo Hernandez now here's some news on Wilfredo he took a plea deal yes he listened to his lawyer and took the plea deal got seven years in the State Penitentiary and three years probation how's that huh yeah you wish you would have all listened to your attorneys now Robert Rodriguez we'll see you in trial March 21st Latoya Johnson March 15th and my many special thanks to Artie from Artie's corporate fiction if you're not subscribed already go on over to his channel check him out and give him a subscribe you can't fix stupid and thanks for joining us on Baxter frauds make sure you hit the thumbs up button to subscribe and ring that Bell for notifications so next time from your video you can meet a live chat with everyone else and leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think and a huge thank you to our channel members Robert Morley Bandon and D Chris Kelling got us the truth peter whack a mole Grand Theft rage Archangel as real strong old fart pets cats droopy Colt Stonewall cw1960 and butcher bird one issue thank you if you'd like to become a member just hit that join button right next to subscribe or click on the link in the description still hanging around why don't hit that subscribe button yeah you might like it hit the thumbs up and if you'd like to support the channel hit the thanks button until next time thank you I'll see you soon [Music] thank you